Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 19STCV04924, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV04924    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                    February 24, 2024¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                   19STCV04924

¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Jeffery Cook v. Nautilus, Inc., et al

¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant, Nautilus 

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff, Jeffery Cook  

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       March 20, 2024

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jeffrey Cook’s Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set Five

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jeffrey Cook’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Seven

                                                (3) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                     (1), (2) Mooted by service of verified responses on January 16, 2024 while the motions were pending

                                                (3) GRANTED, $2,500 in monetary sanctions, payable on or before March 15, 2024

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On February 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants. Plaintiff’s action is an alleged products liability case in which he alleges he suffered a traumatic brain injury resulting in loss of income as a personal trainer and permanent loss of earning capacity.

The instant discovery motions assert that on November 9, 2023, Defendant served Requests for Production of Documents, Set Five and Special Interrogatories, Set Seven. Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff’s responses were due on December 6, 2023, but Plaintiff never served responses. Instead, Defendant notes that on December 11, 2023, Plaintiff served a preservation of objections regarding discovery wherein he objected to all the Requests for Production of Documents, Set Five and Special Interrogatories, Set Seven, asserting the exact same objections: “compound, vague, overly broad, calls for information protected by the attorney client and attorney work product privileges, not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of additional admissible evidence, overly burdensome, oppressive, invasion of privacy, untimely.”

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is attempting to evade the discovery process by failing to respond to the discovery. Defendant argues that the discovery seeks information relating to the facts surrounding Plaintiff’s incident, Plaintiff’s injuries, and Plaintiff’s damages, all of which are clearly relevant and discoverable.

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On January 5, 2024, Defendant filed these Motions to Compel Discovery. On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed oppositions, attaching verified responses to the subject special interrogatories (without any objections) and to the document demand which did assert objections to two of the categories. To date, no reply brief has been filed.  

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A.    Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411

Further, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required. 

B.    Discussion

            Here, Defendant’s moving papers note that Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the propounded discovery, and that when Plaintiff did untimely respond, the responses were riddled with allegedly meritless objections. As such, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to provide full and complete, verified responses to each of the discovery requests, without objection.

            In Plaintiff’s opposition briefs, Plaintiff notes that on January 16, 2024, he served what he contends to be Code-compliant responses to the discovery requests. Accordingly, Plaintiff notes that his counsel requested that defense counsel take this motion off calendar, but defense counsel refused to do so. Oral argument will be permitted by the parties to determine if the January 2024 verified responses are in fact, Code-compliant, and whether Defendant will need to file a Motion to Compel Further responses in the future.

            The Court does not understand Defendant’s argument that responses to the two subject sets of discovery were due in less than 30 days after they were served, nor the defense argument that Plaintiff’s serving of objections on December 11, 2023 was untimely. The Court will entertain oral argument from defense counsel on these points at the hearing. 

C.    Request for Sanctions

Along with Defendant’s Motions to Compel Further Responses, Defendant has also requested sanctions in the amount of $2,340 for each motion. Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.¿¿(CCP. §§ 2030.290(c),¿2030.300(d),¿2031.300(c),¿and 2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿¿(Id.) 

In Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s requests for sanctions should be denied because Plaintiff and his counsel have worked diligently and provided complete responses. Despite this, the Court notes that Defendant was required to bring this motion in order to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses and verifications a month later than they were due, and after defense counsel brought these motions and an ex parte application for an accelerated hearing schedule.  As such, the Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted.

            Defendant’s sanctions amounts are based on defense counsel, Brigitte M. Mayo’s declaration indicating that she has an hourly rate of $300, spent a total of 7.5 hours on each motion (including the review of opposition, and anticipated drafting of the reply brief, and approximate 1 hour attending the hearing), as well as the $90 filing fee for the motion and (1/2 of the ex parte application).  The Court’s tentative ruling is to award a total of $2,500 in monetary sanctions, payable on or before March 15, 2024 by Plaintiff and/or his counsel to defense counsel.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of the rulings.